C.R.No.3031 of 2009 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
C.R.No.3031 of 2009
Date of Decision 13.11.2009
M/s Yorks Plastics
........ Petitioner
Versus
Punjab State Electricity Board & Another
........ Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL
Present: Mr.Sant Pal Singh Sidhu, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr.P.S.Thiara, Advocate, for the respondents.
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.
The plaintiff-petitioner has approached this Court
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, for setting aside the
order dated 19.8.2006, passed by the Civil Judge (Senior
Division), Ludhiana (Annexure-P1) whereby the application filed
by it for temporary injunction restraining the respondents from
disconnecting the electricity supply to the meter of the petitioner
and also from recovering the amount of penalty from it, was
dismissed and the order dated 26.3.2009 (Annexure P-2) whereby
the District Judge, Ludhiana, on appeal there against affirmed the
same.
In para 6 of its order, the lower Appellate Court while
affirming the order of the trial court recorded as under:
“I have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and I
C.R.No.3031 of 2009 -2-am of the considered opinion that the instant
appeal deserves to be dismissed. It is admitted
fact between the parties that initially the
sanctioned load was extended from 79.847 KW
to 298.012 KW and the electric connection was
converted into L.S. Category. The appellant had
approached the Dispute Settlement Committee
for the settlement of issues and had deposited
50% of the alleged demand. The argument
raised by the appellant that the Dispute
Settlement Committee was biased as it
comprised of the full time employees of Punjab
State Electricity Board holds no ground because
the appellant can not be allowed to challenge the
constitution of Dispute Settlement Committee
after having appeared before the same and
having been unsuccessful in getting favourable
orders from the same. Furthermore, if the
appellant had any grievance against the order of
the Dispute Settlement Committee, it had the
remedy to approach Dispute Settlement
Authority, which is appellate authority. Although
the civil court jurisdiction is not barred by
scheme framed by Punjab State Electricity
C.R.No.3031 of 2009 -3-Board, by composing a Dispute Settlement
Committee, yet it does not take away remedy of
the Dispute Settlement Authority i.e. the
Appellate Authority. The applicant is duty bound
to make the payment of the alleged demand, if it
is proved that he violated the Peak Load Hour
Restrictions, therefore, there is no prima facie
case in its favour. The balance of convenience
is also not in favour of the appellant and no
irreparable loss would be caused to it, if the
injunction is not granted in its favour. If case is
finally decided in favour of the applicant/plaintiff,
the money deposited by the appellant can be
adjusted in the future bills raised by Punjab
State Electricity Board for the consumption of
electricity by the appellant. The judgment
W.B.S.E.B Vs. Faqir Chand Rice Mills and other
(supra) relied upon by the appellant lays down
that only half the amount should be directed to
be deposited in the matters of money claims. In
the said judgment, Hon’ble Supreme Court has
infact observed that obligation is cast upon the
consumers to pay the amount subject to the
determination of controversy in the suit and in
C.R.No.3031 of 2009 -4-the said judgment Hon’ble Supreme Court
directed the consumer of electricity to deposit a
sum of Rs.12 lacs within a period of two months.
Hence, the said judgment has not laid down the
law that only half the amount should be directed
to be deposited. In fact it says that at least half
of the amount would be directed to be deposited.
Therefore, I find no merit in the appeal and the
same is hereby dismissed. The lower Court file
be returned alongwith the copy of this judgment
for compliance. The parties are directed to
appear before the ld. Trial Court on 21.4.2009. “
In view of the above observations of the courts below
and for the reason that no illegality or perversity could be shown
therein by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court does
not find any ground to interfere with the impugned orders in
exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India. Accordingly, there is no merit in the present revision
petition and same is hereby dismissed.
Nothing observed in this order shall be construed to be
an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
November 13, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) rishu JUDGE